Get Field Options

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: automatic resolution to the global context when context_id is omitted, and version-specific API mechanisms (Field Context Option API vs createmeta). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists supported field types, and the next two sentences cover Cloud and Server/DC differences. Every sentence adds operational value, with no redundant fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and two distinct deployment paths, the description covers the essential behavior, supported field types, API differences, and required parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured; the description need not repeat them. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds some cross-parameter context (context_id for Cloud, project_key/issue_type for Server/DC) but largely restates what the schema already says, providing only marginal additional meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get allowed option values for a custom field.' It then enumerates the supported field types (select, multi-select, radio, checkbox, cascading select), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like jira_get_request_type_fields or jira_get_create_fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides deployment-specific usage guidance: Cloud uses the Field Context Option API with optional context_id auto-resolving to the global context, while Server/DC uses createmeta and requires project_key and issue_type. It gives clear context for when to use the tool but does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.